Saturday, December 31, 2016

The Obama Legacy: Swapping Hope and Change For Irony and Hypocrisy

In just under three weeks Barack Hussein Obama will hand over the proverbial keys to the White House to Donald J. Trump. Have no fear if you are worried about missing Obama and his winsome advice delivered with a scowl and wagging finger to the peasantry of the United States, there is no chance we won't be hearing from him on a regular basis. The unspoken general practice of former Presidents not criticizing the current President is going to get tossed out of the window because what he has to say on every single issue is just that important. After all, we are entering a period of hopelessness and what is a better antidote to that than hearing from President Narcissus on a daily basis?

Anyway, President Obama has managed to add a hefty sum to the national debt in his 8 years, just as his predecessor did but to an even greater extent. Bush added $5.849 trillion to the debt and Obama added another $7.917 trillion to the debt. Let me spell that out for you, just for effect....


That is a lot of clams.

According to the U.S. Debt Clock, as of right this second the total national debt (not the annual deficit which is what we always hear about) is at....


or about $61,351 per U.S. citizen/$166,760 per U.S. taxpayer. More than a third of that comes from the Obama years so if you are a tax-payer that is around $55,000 of new debt that you are responsible for somehow paying back after just 8 years. The clock went up over a million bucks just while I was typing this, if watching that number race ever upward for a few minutes doesn't make you ill, you aren't paying attention. Between Bush and Obama you can  attribute some $13,766,000,000,000 of new debt to deficit spending in just 16 years. With Trump coming into office right about the same time the debt breaks the $20 trillion mark and apparently not super concerned about deficit spending either, I shudder to think what the debt will be by 2020.

See, the debt used to be down there but now it is up here

What a change a few years makes. As Breitbart points out, in July of 2008 candidate Obama had this to say about President Bush and deficit spending:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

He was right at the time but since then he has added more debt than any other U.S. President in history. That $30,000 we have to pay back for every man, woman and child is now over $60,000. Someone ought to point this out to President Obama but on the other hand I am not sure he understands the concepts of irony and hypocrisy.

If it is irresponsible and unpatriotic to add $4 trillion in debt, what is it when you add over $7 trillion more in debt?

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

I Ain't Skeered Of No ChiComs: One Versus Ten Is Rarely Reason To Be Scared

Our frenemies the Chinese have announced that their next step to world domination is complete and invite us to witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational aircraft carrier!

I will wait a moment while you recover from the panic that has no doubt gripped you in an unbreakable hold. Take your time.

I think we are supposed to be super concerned that China has their very own aircraft carrier, complete with the "ski jump" at the end of the deck to help planes get airborne. It apparently can carry around 36 aircraft. On the other hand, the U.S. already has at least 10 aircraft carriers active according to the official Navy list and 2 more soon to be commissioned, the Gerald Ford (2017) and the John F. Kennedy (2020). According to Wikipedia the Ford will carry over 75 aircraft and the Kennedy over 80. In fact we have 3 or 4 times as many carriers as the Chinese do in long term inactive storage at the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility in Bremerton, Washington. Granted those are not in immediate combat shape, or I assume they are not, but the fact remains that we have so many aircraft carriers that we essentially mothball several of them because it is too much of a hassle to dismantle them. In total the U.S. Navy has over 323,000 active duty personnel, another 100,000 on "ready reserve", 273 "deployable battle force ships", of which less than a third are out to sea and over 3700 aircraft. In contrast China supposedly has over 490 ships but the list includes mostly a bunch of amphibious landing ships, missile boats, over 100 "submarine chasers".

As I pointed out in 2010, the military is the number one sacred cow of Republicans when it comes to government spending and is pretty high on the list for Democrats too when it impacts their own state or district. Back then I wrote:

We have 11 aircraft carriers that are far superior to anything else on the ocean and which allows the U.S. to project power anywhere in the world. The Russian Navy has all of 1 aircraft carrier and even back in the Soviet days never had more than 5-6. The Chinese don’t have a single carrier. India has 1. The British have 1 active aircraft carrier that is thirty years old and two new ones that are not going to be ready for a long time. The French have 1 carrier. The Germans have none. The Japanese have a couple of helicopter carriers which obviously are not a threat to one of our carriers, same with the Australians. So unless some country I am not thinking of has a carrier, we have 11 aircraft carriers and the rest of the world has 4 and half of those are run by our allies. I am going to go on a limb and say that none of the existing aircraft carriers in the world could take on one of ours. So we have an enormous advantage over the rest of the world in terms of numbers of ships (especially carriers which are the most important) and quality of ships.

I would have to amend that now to point out that the Chinese finally have an aircraft carrier and that the single Russian carrier is prone to breaking down and having half of the toilets on board freeze up.

The point is that when Donald Trump has part of his "First 100 Days" plan stuff like this (emphasis mine):

9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

It is clearly nonsense. Rebuild our military? Rebuild it to what? For what? The more reasonable step if we truly care about "national security" would be to reduce our deficit spending on the military, pull most of our foreign based troops home and stop interfering where we have no clue what we are doing and we aren't wanted anyway.

The Chinese with one aircraft carrier that is a joke and a couple of missile batteries on a couple of artificial islands are not a threat to the U.S. and not a threat anytime soon to U.S. dominance of the Pacific. If our allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia are concerned about Chinese military encroachment, maybe they can spend some of their money and build their own navy instead of letting America spend ourselves into bankruptcy to do so. The same goes for our NATO allies who are concerned about the Russian carrier Kuznetsov "Old Smokey" as I call it. Let them spend some of their money to defend their waters. We have enough problems and enough debt of our own already.

Let's hope the celebrity and snowflake generated hysteria abates a little bit once Trump takes office so the actual adults can pay attention to what Trump is actually doing and oppose it where necessary.

Monday, December 26, 2016

Ah, He *USED TO BE* Pretentious

Boy, good thing he got over that personality quirk.....

Sunday, December 18, 2016

The End Of The Most Painful Post-Election Period Ever (Hopefully)

No, not THAT kind of college....
Tomorrow will see the "official" meeting of the electors of the electoral college who will confirm the results of the 2016 Presidential election as lawfully provided for in our Constitution and thus Donald J. Trump will take one more critical step toward assuming the Presidency, the latest in our rather impressive string of peaceful transitions of power in America. For a nice summary of the process tomorrow check out How the Electoral College voting will unfold on Monday.

While I expect the Obama self-congratulation/mourning media tour to continue unabated and the "Russkies hacked da election!" nonsense to continue unabated, I am still hopeful that with the Electoral College voting completed the nation can move away from the on-going fight over the election which threatens to never end. It is over, Trump won in the only way that matters and Hillary lost. The question is what to do now.

There are many, many people like me who did not vote for Donald Trump because he seemed, and this seems confirmed since the election, temperamentally not a great fit for the Oval Office but we also were very concerned by some of his policies. His foreign policy is a mess. While I approve of any recognition of the free people of Taiwan a lot of his other policies seem to be a little hard to understand. Having John Bolton as Deputy Secretary of State is an amusing thumb in the eye to the Left but his appointment is also a dream come true for the very worst interventionist elements in the neo-con wing of the Republican party. He is also talking about enormous deficit spending on "infrastructure" but then is going to nominate a budget hawk like Mick Mulvaney as his budget director which seems to send conflicting messages. His judicial picks will need careful scrutiny to ensure he keeps his word on the kind of picks he makes. Lots of stuff needs to be carefully watched but ironically the histrionics from the snowflake Left and the more insidious serious Leftist partisans has meant that instead of thinking about real issues we are arguing about Russian hacking, the Electoral College, a slew of fake "hate crimes", etc. In other words they are providing cover for Trump as he prepares to take office. Ironic but maybe not.

Tomorrow our nation follows the method chosen very specifically and intentionally by men far wiser than most of those in power today to elect a new President. Let's celebrate that the system works and we don't have violent coups that change our government like so many other nations.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

A Country Without Obama Is Apparently A Hopeless Place To Be Ashamed Of

Remember back in 2008 when now First Lady and soon to be (not soon enough) former First Lady said that she was finally proud of her country.....

"For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm proud of my country."

Sure she said that it wasn't just because Barack Obama was running for President and doing well...but it was just because Barack Obama was running for President and doing well.

Then this week Mrs. Obama will be on prime time with Oprah and will tell America that we are without hope....cuz Barack Obama won't be President.

"See now we are feeling what not having hope feels like." It must be true because Oprah is nodding her head as earnestly as she can, hopefully she didn't pull a muscle nodding so hard. Weird, I didn't vote for Trump but I am far more hopeful now than I was after either election Obama won. I must be a fascist or a racist or some combination thereof.

Notice that to Michelle, Americans are the toddlers who bumped their heads and are looking to mommy, a "grown-up in the White House". I guess according to Mrs. Obama we all feel like our lives are in vain without Big Poppy Obama in the White House, the "grown-up" who has spent 8 years acting like a spoiled brat whenever he didn't get his way.

One would think that a lady who spent the last 8 years in the lap of luxury being dressed by the finest designers and taking a pile of vacations that cost the American taxpayers over $85,000,000 would look back with some gratitude but no, we are descending back into the land of hopelessness that existed before the rise of the Messiah Barack Hussein Obama.

How in the world did America manage to survive and thrive and be a beacon to the world for the 232 years that Barack Obama wasn't out President? Oh yeah, it is all because of racism and sexism and xenophobia.

January 20th can't come soon enough.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Race And Exit Polls

One of the big media narratives on Election night and for weeks every since was the so-called "under-educated white vote", which means basically white people without a college degree, as if that is the best determining factor for whether one is educated or not. As the exit polls reported by CNN show below, Trump did win a very substantial percentage of white voters without a college degree, 66% overall and 71% of men...

So that means Trump won because of "whitelash" but under-educated white voters, right? Well not so fast. Trump also won among college educated white voters, 48% to 45% and especially among men with 53%. So the only white voters Hillary Clinton carried were college educated white women but even there, in what should have been a strong category for her, she only got 51% to Trump's 44%. A lot of pundits have spent a lot of time and effort talking about this. What isn't talked about is the breakdown of the black vote. See below....

As is typical, Hillary won a huge percentage of the black vote, 89% overall and a whopping 94% among black women. Which raises a question, why is Trump winning an overwhelming percentage of non-college educated white men a major topic of conversation in the chattering class when a much greater percentage of black vote votes for Hillary doesn't really warrant even a mention? The simple answer is that it isn't newsworthy. The black vote always goes overwhelmingly for the Democrats. In 2008 the overall black vote went 95% for Obama and 93% in 2012, according to CNN. In essence an entire race is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party.

Of course it is assumed that this is the case because everyone knows that black interests are only represented by Democrats. What that means in practice is that it is assumed that all black voters want more and bigger government. Maybe that is true but maybe it is not. It is the very essence of racism to assume that all blacks want more government because all blacks are convinced that they can only get ahead if someone else is giving them something "for free". This mindset is poisonous and it is far more insidious and dangerous than the alleged "alt-right" support for Trump because it is so ingrained and pervasive. To even suggest a different viewpoint than the prevailing one is to invite charges of racism if you are white or failure to be a "real" black if you are black.

In a politically charged climate where accusations of "fake news" and shadowy Russkie agents and recounts based on vague charges of hacking when no evidence exists of anything of the sort happening dominate the news and are doing a splendid job of prolonging the rancor of a particularly ugly election season, it is still worth our time to ask some of the harder and more piercing questions. As the years have gone by, the once reliable white working class, union guys and others, have moved from the Democrats to the Republicans. Sure the union leadership by and large still make the right noises about supporting Democrats but thanks to the Obama administration waging war on the sort of jobs union guys work at, this last election it didn't seem if union leaders were working very hard to elect Hillary. Meanwhile the rank and file have largely abandoned the Democrats as they have come to see that beyond the rhetoric the Democrats are largely the party of the super-rich and the dependency class and has no interest in working class people of any color other than offering them welfare and food stamps when their jobs disappear. I am hoping that more and more black Americans will likewise start to wonder just what exactly Democrats have done for blacks. I think the answer might just shock and dismay them.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Dear Not-Going-To-Be-Vice-President Tim Kaine

Mr. Kaine

After a Muslim terrorist drove a car into a crowd at Ohio State and then chased innocent by-standers with a knife, you responded with:

Deeply saddened by the senseless act of gun violence at Ohio State this morning. Praying for the injured and the entire Buckeye community

Of course as we know, the only act of "gun violence" was an OSU cop who shot Abdul Razak Ali Artan and the actions of that officer were anything but "senseless". Some would defend your leap to conclusion by pointing out that Ohio State reported an "active shooter" situation but even then we had no facts to support any shooting and we knew nothing about what happened. That didn't stop you from tripping over yourself to slam "gun violence" before we knew if it was indeed a gun being used or, as it turned out, was instead a car and a knife. These things can be confusing, I understand. I want to help you.

Here is a quick refresher.

This is a gun

This is a car

And this is a knife

Of course all three have variations but the basic shape is similar. You might want to keep this post handy for reference before sending out future tweets.

Or a better idea might be to not seek to politicize a criminal or terrorist situation to push an agenda of disarming the populace before we know at least a handful of facts. Even better yet, don't push that agenda at all. Just a suggestion. 

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Where Are The Recounts In New Hampshire, Colorado And Nevada (and Minnesota)?

I pointed out on my main blog last night the utter hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton jumping on the "recount" bandwagon started by lefty loon Jill Stein. She seems to think that even though she conceded, everyone in the world accepted the results (however reluctantly) and the transition has begun, there is some completely rational reason to think that she can overturn the results and still become President. I sort of get why she is doing this, her entire life has been consumed with becoming President and now that will never, ever happen. Our first female President will not be her but instead a, hopefully, at least reasonably decent person.

So I got to wondering, and I am sure others have as well but this is my pondering and my data gathering, why are there recounts being called for in just three states that Hillary Clinton lost? There are three states that she won that were awfully close, Colorado (9 electoral college votes), Nevada (4) and New Hampshire (3). See below for the vote differences in the three states she wants a recount (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan) and compare them to the three I mentioned (see also addendum below re: Minnesota):

I got my numbers from the Fox News website this morning and verified them against Politico, and in the case of Colorado where the numbers were different I used Politicos numbers. If I am doing the math correctly, the total difference in the three recount states is 107,105 votes. The total difference in the three states she won and is not calling for a recount is 100,907. As an aside I managed to get a B.A. without taking (or at least passing) a single math or statistics course so please feel free to verify these numbers on your own.

Now maybe I am just being suspicious but it seems to me that if Jill Stein is so worried about "Election Integrity™", shouldn't she be calling for a recount in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire where the total margin was slightly less than the three she is raising funds to recount? Especially in New Hampshire where the difference was less than 3,000 votes?

Sure, I get that in the three states she won the total votes were mostly much lower so the margin percentage is much smaller but remember that we are worried about "election integrity" here. If 27,257 votes in Wisconsin made the difference and we should recount them, shouldn't 26,434 votes in Colorado be recounted as well? It is almost like Jill Stein is doing this whole recount thing for partisan reasons instead of because "Election Integrity™", a concept that only seems to matter to Jill when she wants to recount states her preferred candidate lost instead of when it comes to making sure people who are casting ballots are, ya know, actually legally voting in the first place.

Once she is made aware of the razor thin margins that Hilary won those three states by, I am sure Jill will immediately start to solicit funds from her Starbucks barista and community organizer fan base to have those states recounted as well. After all, she is the self-anointed champion of "Election Integrity™".


Someone pointed out that Minnesota with 10 electoral college votes was actually even closer. I didn't catch it because I initially looked at the list of battleground states and usually reliably Left Minnesota (home of Mondale after all) wasn't supposed to be contested. Here is Minnesota added in:

By my count that means that Hillary might have 26 Electoral College votes in error. Someone alert Jill Stein to this new threat to "Election Integrity™"!

Thursday, November 24, 2016

The United States of America Is A Republic, Not A Democracy, And I Am Thankful For That

National Review has a post up that a friend referred me to, Unity Through Federalism, and it is pretty good all around but is specifically has two of the best paragraphs on the actual system of government we operate under in America.

The Constitution specifically enshrined a federalist system that limited the power of the federal government and allowed the people to govern themselves through the various states. This federalist approach was the result of our founders’ reasoned and deliberative effort to reform the Articles of Confederation, under which power was insufficiently centralized to allow us to function effectively together as one nation. Now, we have the opposite problem: Power in America is centralized to the point where every national election seems life-or-death.

Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to care quite so deeply about who controlled the White House? Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t have to care who might be appointed to the Supreme Court beyond knowing he or she was qualified to wisely answer questions of law? Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to care who the bureaucrats were because their duties weren’t so consequential?


It seems so novel. People in Indiana probably know what they want and what is better for Hoosiers than some government flunky in D.C. that has no idea where Indiana is.

It is so frustrating to see people spouting off about the popular vote or how unfair it is that votes in less populated states matter on social media and it is a clear sign of a failure (intentional or not) in teaching basic civics to kids. Having even a rudimentary understanding of our government is enough to quell the complaints about the electoral college. Unfortunately asking for a rudimentary understanding of pretty much any topic and the ability to engage in the most basic of critical thinking are in short supply.

We don't live in America. We live in the United States of America. Our system of government is a federalist one that specifically and intentionally limits the Federal government. Ours was not intended as a top down system with all of the power concentrated in the hands of a few people in Washington, D.C. and the states serving only as quaint points of interest for us to mark the time as we drive cross-country. We are a nation of states that formed a Federal government to handle only those things that were not practical for the individual states (i.e national defense). As a reminder, the Tenth Amendment, the most ignored of all the Amendments, reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution very specifically reserves a few powers to the Federal government, a very limited and very specific list, and then states very clearly that everything else is to be handled at the state or local level. While politicians have sought to dismantle this Federal system for most of the last 100 years, it doesn't change the form of government we live under. The Bill of Rights is set up very intentionally and the Amendment show up where they do for a reason. The First Amendment is our most important, the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment comes last to wrap up and specify that the Federal government is very limited in scope.

As many have noted, a lot of people thought executive orders and executive overreach were great when Obama was doing it but now are terrified because Trump is inheriting the precedent of Obama. I agree with others who say that a lot of liberals are going to develop a sudden new appreciation for the concept of limited government.

If you are scared of Trump, and you might have good reason to be but probably not for the reasons you see on social media, then the solution is not to overturn the electoral college or to undo the Federal system of government but instead to return to a proper reflection of our Constitutional form of government so that it isn't a life or death crisis when someone you don't like is elected President. 

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Sanctuary Amid Slaughter

I mentioned earlier that it was ironic that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago declared Chicago a sanctuary city that was safe for illegal aliens while at the same time his city is one of the most dangerous places in America for black men. Yesterday a news story came out that showed once again how true this is and how the response to the murder crisis in Chicago is so politicized that even a grieving grandfather cannot see past it. The headline tells the story: Chicago police say charges are expected in death of congressman's grandson

Officials in Chicago said charges could be announced soon in the shooting death of an Illinois congressman's grandson following an argument over a pair of basketball shoes.

Officials say two juveniles are in custody and are being considered suspects in the murder of Javon Wilson, after he was shot in the head in his Chicago home on Friday.

"The detectives are continuing their interrogations and charges are expected," Officer Michelle Tannehill said on Saturday night.

Police announced earlier that the shooting occurred after a dispute over basketball shoes.

Wilson allegedly knew his attackers, but the juveniles in custody have not been identified.

The 15-year-old boy is the grandson of longtime U.S. Rep. Danny Davis.

Davis said he was told that a 15-year-old boy had traded slacks for shoes with Wilson's 14-year-old brother, but thought better of the trade and went to Wilson's house with a 17-year-old girl. He said the pair forced their way in the house and argued with Wilson before the boy pulled a gun and fired.

As is all too often the case, the blame is on the "prevalence" of guns. Representative Davis said in the aftermath:

Davis also said that his grandson was a victim of a world where gun violence has become commonplace.

"It's almost, just the way it is. People think nothing of it," Davis said. "Youngsters invariably say, 'I know a lot of guys who've got guns. I know a lot of girls who've got guns.”

Davis added, "It becomes a part of the culture of an environment that has got to change."

Davis has been a member of the Democratic party for nearly 20 years. He was re-elected this month to his 11th term in the 7th Congressional District.

"The question becomes where does a 15-year-old obtain a gun? Who let the 15-year-old have a gun and under what circumstances?" Davis asked. "There's no answer for that except that the availability of guns is so prevalent in America to the point where you almost can't tell who has a gun" anymore.

The thing is, guns have always been prevalent in America. I grew up with ready access to firearms my entire life. I was on occasion angry with other people as a kid and teen but it never, ever occurred to me that it would be a sensible to get one of my dad's guns and shoot someone over a squabble or slight. My kids live in a home with guns and never would even consider shooting someone. Millions of people grew up like I did, in homes where guns were present but where guns were also taught to be something you didn't play around with. So something else must be at play here. 

The answer might have something to do with a culture that deems a slight or insult, no matter whether real or perceived, is something that is properly responded to with violence and deadly violence at that. There must be some reason why millions of Americans with ready access to guns never point a gun at someone else and so many others pull the trigger. 

I cannot imagine the anguish of Representative Davis in losing a grandchild and I grieve for he and his family but with all sincerity he and others need to ask the harder questions instead of casting blame on firearms. Restrictive gun laws have done nothing to curb violence in places like Chicago and Baltimore so it is high time that people entrusted with the public safety figure out what is wrong, even if those questions and answers don't serve a political purpose. 

While You Are Crying and Gnashing Your Teeth We Can't Have Real And Necessary Conversations

The feverish denouncement and semi-professional protests continue unabated as the impotent rage of American liberals washes over social media. The cast of the musical Hamilton took the time to stand on stage and scold/lecture the incoming Vice-President of the United States, accusing him of failing to "protect them", whatever that means, and demanding he uphold "their" American values which apparently are different from American values in places like Indiana, signalling that their particular brand of entertainment comes with a heavy ideological price tag. It was a classless, clumsy and juvenile move but it was simultaneously declared breathlessly by liberals to be one step above the Declaration of Independence and at the same time condemned by conservatives who, like me, have never seen and have no interest in seeing this musical. It is pretty clear that for the foreseeable future we are not going to get a moment of rest from the denunciations of a man who, for better or likely for worse, was lawfully and fairly elected to be the next President of the United States.

Meanwhile as the Sturm und Drang continues to rain liberal tears all over America, there are some actual important things happening that are getting little attention. Instead of being focused on places where Trump is an actual danger, the sort of places political conservatives/libertarians warned about during the primary season and led many to declare themselves #NeverTrump, we instead get stories about an overwrought speech from a Broadway actor who couldn't find Indiana on a map with both hands and Lena Dunham seeking wisdom and solace by communing with rocks.

For example. A number of mayors across the country have declared that the cities they run are now and forever more "Sanctuary Cities" where people who are breaking the law simply by being here, i.e. illegal aliens, are safe from the jackbooted forces of the INS. Never mind that these same people have been cheerleaders for the unlimited increase of the Federal Goliath into every aspect of our lives. Also pay no attention to the very real fact that Rahm Emmanuel's Chicago is supposed to be a safe place for people who are in this country illegally but is at the same time one of the most dangerous places in America for black people who are American citizens. What I found troubling is that Trump is already threatening these "sanctuary cities". One of the points of Trump's first 100 days in office plan is:

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

For those on the Left this is of course terrible. For those on the Right this causes giggling with glee. I understand why. These pompous boobs who think that some criminal behavior ought to be protected are getting a taste of their own medicine as Trump threatens to use the Obama "Withhold Federal education funding if you don't let boys into girl's restroom and locker room facilities" tactics. What is missed ought to be obvious. Why are there "Federal funds" for cities in the first place? Why do we allow D.C. to take money out of our cities and states and then dictate to us under what terms we are allowed to have our own money back? Taking money away from the people and then extorting them with their own money is the ultimate statist move. News flash: Donald Trump is not a conservative of any stripe.

Another example. In an about-face that was dizzying, many of the neo-con establishment Republicans who not-so-secretly lit candles hoping for a Hillary Clinton win have managed to position themselves for prominent posts in the Trump administration, posing as "experts" that Trump will need to run foreign policy. As the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity reports there is a struggle going on between Neo-Cons and Libertarians over who will craft the Trump administration's foreign policy: War Breaks Out Between Neo-Cons And Libertarians Over Trump's Foreign Policy.

It is very possible and perhaps very likely that the interventionist class will come to dominate the Trump administration after doing all they could to keep him out of the White House. Those of us on both sides of the political spectrum who want to see a less interventionist foreign policy had better start to pay attention and make our voices heard.

This is all before Trump has even been sworn in but by all means let's pay attention to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the participation ribbon generation instead of watching what is really happening. Ironically the people who are making the most noise think they are "standing up" to Trump when in reality they are creating a very effective smokescreen that is obscuring what is really going on. Good job, now go over-pay for a juvenile, historically inaccurate up-jumped high school play so you can feel better about yourself.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Thoughts on the "abolish the Electoral College!" nonsense

This is a safety pin, also known as
a diaper pin. Think about that for
a second....
I have been really, really trying to not get too snarky about the election. After all, the guy I reluctantly voted for (Gary Johnson) did pretty well for a third-party candidate but didn't even get 5% of the vote. To be honest, if we lived in Ohio, what was thought to be a battleground state, instead of a sure thing for Trump like Indiana where we actually live, I would have been a lot more tempted to vote for Trump just to deny the White House to another member of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. 

Even still I have to say that while I expected people to be upset, the sheer hysteria and criminal behavior exhibited days later is incredible. The temper tantrum on display from people who clearly think that only they have the right to decide the direction of this country is ugly and unbecoming but not really surprising when you stop and think about it. Thanks to a combination of telling people in this country that they are entitled to whatever they want and the general historic ignorance in this country it is little wonder that people now are acting like the Electoral College is some nefarious plot created a century ago to deny Hillary Clinton that White House that we need to do away with.

We live in the United States of America. We are governed by a document called the Constitution. This document provides a very specific, very well thought out and very intentional method for electing a President. That method is the electoral college. It was created as a specific way to choose a President that protects the rights of people living in smaller states. It is helpful to remember that we don't live in "America". We live in "The United States Of America". Ours is a nation made up of individual, sovereign states that are joined together for a common purpose under a Republic. We don't live in a democracy. You don't vote on defense appropriations or to go to war. The representatives you elect vote on your behalf. The same is true for the election of the President, the only elected representative of the entire nation. We vote as a state to pick electors to represent our state at the Electoral College. That is what it is supposed to do and the teams for Trump and Clinton (and Stein and Johnson and etc.) all know this and plan (or should plan) accordingly. 

Complaining after the fact that your candidate "won" the popular vote but lost the electoral college is like saying this:

In a football game lots of stats are kept. One of those is total yards. It makes some sense, you have to typically gain yards to advance down the field in order to either cross the goal line or be in position for a field goal. So gaining yards is a critical component of a winning strategy in football. No one who is a successful coach plans on gaining fewer yards than the other team in their game plan. But gaining more yards is not the ultimate goal. That is because what counts is not total yards or time of possession or quarterback rating. What counts are points on the board via touchdowns and field goals (and safeties but those are rare). In fact it is not uncommon for a team to gain more total yards and still lose because of poor field position or turnovers or any number of factors. So in your game plan you focus on scoring points for your team and denying points to the other team. That is how you win and you plan your strategy accordingly.

The same is true in our Presidential elections. It was not a surprise to anyone that the way to win the Presidency is to get the majority of electoral college votes, at least 270 to win. There is a reason that Hillary Clinton spent lots of time in Ohio leading up to the election. Ohio has a population of around 11.5 million people. California which is a very liberal state has over 39 million people or more than three and a half times the population. So why didn't Hillary spend more time in California and less in Ohio? Because California's 55 electoral college votes were in the bag for Clinton like Indiana's were for Trump. She won over 60% of the popular vote there and that was probably the least she could get and she did so without even trying very hard. That was smart. Even if she had won 95% of the vote in California she couldn't get more than 55 electoral college votes. That is why she spent so much time in Ohio, which turned out to have been a poor decision because Trump won Ohio 52% to 43.5% which wasn't even close and therefore gets all 18 of Ohio's electoral college votes, but at the time she and her staff thought it made sense to contest Ohio because she needed those 18 electoral college votes and more to the point she needed to deny them to Trump. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your political persuasion she didn't spend as much time as she needed to in places she thought she would win like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and that cost her the election. I am not sure being in those states more would have helped given how unpopular she is but not showing up at all in Wisconsin was probably an error.

Again, this was not a secret process. So if Hillary's team said don't worry about Wisconsin, it is a sure thing and they were wrong (which they were) and she ended losing Wisconsin and their 10 electoral college votes by around 25,000 total Cheesehead votes, that is on her.

It is not a flaw in the system, which worked exactly as designed. It was an error in judgment on the part of her campaign team and that is on her and on her advisers (and I wouldn't want to be the guy/gal in charge of Wisconsin, their job prospects in D.C. are probably pretty dim right now...). 

Future Presidential candidates are planning strategies already for 2020 and they are not planning on getting a majority of the meaningless "popular vote". That is a means to an end but the end goal is to get to 270 in the electoral college. It works like it should and that is a good thing for people who don't live in New York and California. So stop whining about the electoral college and maybe instead pick a candidate who is not quite so unlikable and so obviously corrupt and dishonest.

As an aside, as of right now I show that Trump got 60,072,551 total votes and Hillary got 60,467,601 for a difference of 395,050. That sounds like a lot but it is less than 4/10 of 1% if the total votes cast so functionally the results in the popular vote were a tie. The cold, hard fact of 2016 is that two immensely unpopular candidates basically got exactly half of the votes each and Trump won based on a better result in the electoral college. The election is over, the GOP now controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House so the question now is what they will do with that power. If they screw it up, there is a mid-term election in less than 2 years and another Presidential election in less than 4. 

Friday, November 4, 2016

They were just emails, what is the big deal?

When President Clinton was impeached back in the 90's, the left and their lapdogs in the media very quickly managed to change the narrative. Pretty soon it was "it is just sex, what is the big deal?'. What this conveniently ignored is that President Clinton was not impeached because he had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. In the oval office. Ugh. Anyway, the reason he was impeached is that he was questioned under oath about a sexual harassment case in front of a grand jury and that question came up and he lied about it. We call that perjury. While he was impeached in the House, the Senate failed to do so and he remained in office although he had his law license suspended because of his illegal behavior. The media did such a good job of changing the narrative that I would bet if you could find a younger person (or even a lot of older people) that actually know Bill Clinton used to be President and even more unlikely know he was impeached, the vast majority of them would think he was impeached because of his sexual escapades with a White House intern, not for lying under oath, committing perjury and obstructing justice. A sitting President lies under oath and gets away with it and no one seems to remember. 

The same thing is happening now. The narrative has changed from Hillary Clinton storing and sending classified emails from a private, apparently ramshackle email server, exposing state secrets to hackers which apparently actually did happen and then misleading and outright lying about it later to the new, improved narrative that "They were just emails, what is the big deal?". The big deal is that she did something someone with an 8th grade education should have known was unsecure which violated the implicit trust someone who is one of the top officials in  the Federal government is assumed to have , she lied about it repeatedly, somehow those emails ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop along with pictures of his fella parts he was sending to a 15 year old girl and her apparent inability to recall even a single detail about it. If you can't be responsible with sending emails, how can you be responsible to negotiate with foreign powers and have access to the nuclear launch codes?

As pertinent as her mishandling of classified information ought to be for voters (Does "C" stand for classified? I thought it stood for cookie and that's good enough for me.), what is really reflected by Mrs. Clinton's blatant disregard for national security is the ongoing, decades long pattern she and her husband have exhibited of seeing themselves as above the law. They have lied, cheated and prostituted themselves to the highest bidder for decades and become filthy rich in doing so. I have no issue with someone becoming rich, but I do have an issue with someone using their political influence to become rich selling access to foreign governments. 

Donald Trump is a pig and a boor and has said outrageous, indefensible stuff. Hillary Clinton has done far worse and is the co-head of what can only be described as a criminal syndicate. I can understand not voting for Trump but to vote for someone as repulsive as Hillary Clinton is morally indefensible. 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

President Narcissus Strikes Again

America's most self-centered, ego-maniacal President in modern history threw a hissy fit today because, *GASP!*, the United States Congress exercised it's Constitutional authority to override his veto of a bill allowing the families of 9/11 victims to go to court and sue Saudi Arabia. Note please that it does not guarantee any compensation, it merely gives these citizens the right to address an alleged wrong in a court of law, a basic right under, you guessed it, our Constitutional system of government. It wasn't really close. The Senate voted 97-1, with only irrelevant crony Harry Reid to cast a sycophantic and empty gesture vote against. The House voted 348-77 to override his veto. Again, this ability is a central part of the checks and balances system that President Obama so loathes.

The backlash by the Hectorer-In-Chief was swift and predictable. White House Mouth of Sauron spokesman Josh Earnest called it an embarrassment:

“I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

If he thinks that is the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done in the last 33 years, he is not really paying attention. You could pretty much pick any action taken by the Senate on a random day and find something more embarrassing. Again,  the real outrage here is not the veto per se but the idea that the peasants in the United States Congress should show such contempt for their Glorious Leader and His Divine Will. I mean really, how dare the ignorant, unwashed Congressmen question the decree of President Obama? Don't they know that He rules from on high by Divine Mandate, or in other words by His Own Will?

The Dear Leader Himself weighed in, calling the veto a "mistake". Of course anything anyone does at any time that is not blessed by Himself is of course a mistake. He complained that it was, again *GASP!*, a POLITICAL VOTE! A political vote?! In a political body?! Cast by....politicians?! Thwarting another politicians, er, Imperial Majesty?! The horror of it all!

He went on (of course, my emphasis):

Obama did, however, say “all of us still carry the scars and trauma of 9/11,” acknowledging that the victims of the attacks deserve support and compensation for their losses. The White House administration established a victim’s compensation fund. Regardless, the president said he feels the law could have a damaging impact on the U.S. 

Obama told Tapper that the U.S. has set up a “status of forces agreements,” which guarantees that any deployed U.S. troops are protected from similar private lawsuits — a deal that is acknowledged by several countries because the U.S. honors it with them as well.

Ah, I see. Someone else commits a terrorist attack on American soil, murdering almost 3000 American citizens, supported and funded in all likelihood by a foreign government and of course their families should be compensated!

By their fellow Americans. 

Read that again. American citizens should have to pay to compensate other American citizens for a terrorist attack by foreigners with the support of foreign governments. That is kind of like making he family of a murder victim reimburse the murderer for the cost of the bullets.

America is responsible for compensating Americans murdered by foreigners. Only in the fever swamp of Obama's imagination does that not cause outrage.

If we are concerned about other countries suing our troops who are deployed there, then I have a swell idea. Don't deploy our troops there. They don't get sued and we save a ton of money. Win, win!

Maybe it was a political stunt but I would rather that our citizens get their day in court than have the Administration sweep Saudi involvement under the rug. I mean sure, the Saudi's are our buddies (except for women visiting their kingdom) and buy lots of guns from us that they use to starve and slaughter people in Yemen but that all pales compared to the embarrassment felt by our Luminous Star.

Never in my memory has their ever been a man who is so unsuited to the job of President than Barack Obama. He is simply too small of a man to hold the highest office in this land or any other.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Cops And Context: A Plea For Common Sense

Before I start. two opening points.

First, being a cop on patrol and responding to calls is a highly dangerous, immensely stressful job. A person in a call center can take the next call without worrying about getting killed. A cop has that thought, they might be killed, just about every single time they do their job. I would not do their job even if I was able to do so within the boundaries of my faith. I think that for the vast majority of cops the last thing they want to do while on duty is pull their gun and want even less to have to use it.

Second, there are obviously people who are bad people on police forces around the country, just as their are bad doctors and bad garbage men. Racism exists among some cops. An attraction to having power over others and a license to commit violence also exists. Police are the primary enforcement mechanism of the coercive state. As such I am naturally a little suspicious of the police.

As of this morning, the violence in Charlotte is undiminished. More cops hurt by rioters. More stores looted, property damaged. A man is in critical condition right now after being shot, allegedly by someone other than the police. The national guard is being mobilized.

It is a scene we have observed again and again. For people like me who live way out in the country, it is fairly remote and distant but it certainly reinforces the idea of cities as dangerous places you don't want to go. For people who live in urban areas it is a growing reality, a new "normal" of discontent and violence.

I am not looking to comment in general about the logic of protesting violence with more violence, including damaging your own neighborhoods. I am just asking for some common sense.

The response in Charlotte at first blush seems to me, not to put too fine a point on it, insane. People are rioting and causing damage and injury because a cop shot a man holding a gun who refused a lawful order to drop it. I believe in an absolute, unalienable right of free citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms. I also recognize that the police, while in the act of carrying out their duties, have a perfectly reasonable expectation that a person with a gun who is asked to drop said gun or otherwise remove the immediate threat it poses because of a volatile situation. Too many cops get shot in this country to expect cops to wait until someone actually starts shooting at them before returning fire. If I were legally hunting and came across a game warden, I would set my gun down or at least break open the action so it wasn't an immediate threat. That is just common sense and common courtesy. People with any background in handling guns safely and properly understand why a gun in your hands can be seen as a threat.

My point here today is simple. Those who are in leadership positions within the black community have a responsibility to show some common sense for the sake and protection of their own people and it is absolutely necessary if they are going to make a difference. Here is what I mean. If you respond to what seems to be a completely justifiable shooting like the one in Charlotte and previously of Michael Brown in Ferguson in the same way you do what looks like a sketchy shooting in Tulsa, you completely lose your credibility. I believe the average citizen of this country, white or black or whatever, understands why the cop in Charlotte shot Keith Lamont Scott. So when you have religious leaders who describe it in terms like "modern day lynching" and threatening more violence if "justice" is not served and you have people attacking cops and looting Wal-Mart in response, it looks like people are just taking advantage of a situation to carry out depraved behavior.

When you respond to every shooting, justified or not, with the same message, it looks to the rest of the country like you are anti-cop and anti-law and are simply looking for an excuse to cause mayhem. It is sort of a "boy who cried wolf" situation. If you say "this is unjust!" when someone is shot without provocation but you also say "this is unjust!" when someone is shot for a valid reason, it all starts to sound the same and your message is diluted. If your concern is a perceived propensity for cops to use lethal force against black men that is unwarranted by the situation, then stop sticking your face in front of any microphone you can find when someone is justifiably shot. If you don't, people will stop listening to you and nothing will ever change. If you think that cops should never shoot anyone then you are dumb and should just shut up in general.

By all means, speak out when there is injustice being done but first take some time to think through what qualifies as unjust and what doesn't. A man in the dark with a gun in his hand who refuses clear, verbal instructions from cops to drop it is an immediate, lethal threat that cops have to respond to. The shooting of an armed black man by a black police officer is sad and unfortunate but completely justified if the facts bear out the description from the police.

So please just take a moment. I know we are in an era of immediate feedback to every event but take some time to think about what is just and unjust before calling for justice. If the black community leaders in Charlotte said something like "This was an unfortunate loss of life but it appears to be justified. Let's let the investigation take it's course and in the meantime let's focus on situations where the shooting seems unjustified", it would quell many of the violent "protests" and place the focus on where it needs to be.

When you cry wolf and paint with the broadest of brushes regardless of the facts, you dilute your message and are rightly discounted by most Americans. That isn't helping anyone but the people who have a vested interest in stirring up racial division wherever possible.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Political Hypocrisy At It's Finest, Fauxcahontas Style

So, far left Senator Elizabeth Warren took the time yesterday to grill the CEO of Wells Fargo, one John Stumpf about the recent banking scandals where many bankers were engaged in shady behavior that was rewarded. Now Wells Fargo has got some 'splaining to do and I am writing some notes of my own using my experience as a bank manager but I couldn't help but notice the faux outrage from Senator Warren who seems to think that the CEO of Wells Fargo should resign and be criminally investigated. Of course this is the same stalwart defender of honesty and ethical behavior who endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

Unethical behavior at a business? Off with his head!

Unethical behavior while a public official? Let's elect her to be our next President!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Elizabeth Warren

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Wow. Megalomaniac Much President Narcissus?

President Obama has apparently decided that after almost 8 wasted years of his Presidency the time has come to use the time he has left in office to campaign for Hillary Clinton on the tax-payer's dime. Perhaps he is having a tough time getting a tee time at his favorite golf courses. Anyhoo, last night Obama said something very telling last night to the Congressional (Liberal) Black Caucus, emphasis mine :

President Barack Obama said Saturday night he will take it as a "personal insult" if the African-American community fails to turn out for the presidential election and encouraged black voters to support Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Obama delivered his final keynote address to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, symbolically passing the torch to the person he hopes will succeed him next year. Clinton, his former secretary of state, was honored for becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major party.

Obama said his name may not be on the ballot, but issues of importance to the black community were, including justice, good schools and ending mass incarceration.

"I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election," Obama said with a stern look and booming passion. "You want to give me a good send-off, go vote."

Wow. You know what is really insulting? One man declaring that if blacks don't vote (and of course mindlessly vote for only Democrats), it will be a "personal insult" and "an insult to my legacy". Read his words again:

I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy if this community let's down it's guard

It is true that many Presidents are concerned about their legacy and how history will view them, especially near the end of their time in office. No one that I know of has scolded an entire group of people because if they don't do what he says, based solely on the color of their skin, it might taint his legacy. Who else is so pompous that they arrogantly command people to get out and vote for someone else because not doing so might make Obama look bad?

Of course his sycophantic would be successor who is banking on the black vote:

"We need ideas not insults, real plans to help struggling Americans in communities that have been left out and left behind, not prejudice and paranoia. We can't let Barack Obama's legacy fall into the hands of someone who doesn't understand that, whose dangerous and divisive vision for our country will drag us backwards," she said.

I guess when you are despised by the people of America and known as a dishonest snake oil salesman, you have to appeal to blacks to vote for you so that they don't taint the all-important legacy of President Obama. Hillary's entire campaign revolves around a) staying out of sight as much as possible and b) pointing out that she in not Donald Trump. There is no real reason to vote for her unless you just care about the first female President or not having Trump as President. It is the weakest argument of any Presidential candidate I can remember, 

Sssh! Don't interrupt me peon! I'm
pondering my legacy!
I have noticed through the disaster known as the Obama Presidency that he references himself more than any President in my lifetime. His speeches are full of "I" and "me" no matter what the topic. To him the Presidency is nothing more than a global platform to remind everyone of just how great he is. This angry rant about black voters not tainting his legacy is outrageous. When I say he shows signs of megalomania, I am not engaged in hyperbole. You really kind of need to be arrogant in some respects to be successful at certain jobs. I think of surgeons, of jet fighter pilots, sports. A quarterback who is uncertain of himself is going to get sacked a lot. A surgeon who is afraid to make a decision knowing it is the right thing is going to kill a lot of patients. So much more is true to become President. You have to go out day after day and tell the American people that out of some 300,000,000+ Americans, you and you along are the right person to run this nation. It takes some pride. But Barack Obama has taken that to a whole new level. No one else has been so open and unapologetic about using the power and prestige of the Presidency to showcase himself, his purported brilliance and charm. When he uses the bully pulpit to harangue and scold Americans like a bunch of children, wagging his finger at us and telling us how much we have disappointed him yet again, he exposes his contempt for the American people and America itself. 

Next January can't come soon enough. 

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Criminal Activity Isn't The Crime, Feeling That You Need To Commit Criminal Acts Is The Crime

If the title of this post makes no sense to you, be relieved because it means you still are at least somewhat sane. If the title of this post makes any sense to you whatsoever you need to seek professional help.

So in the "Irony" category comes a story of a "Black Lives Matter (*When Killed By Cops)" activist who was robbed at gunpoint near the University of Houston where he is a grad student. The reason that this is ironic is two-fold.

First, here is a young black man being robbed by another young-ish black man. Black on black crime is a vastly more serious problem that the cases of excessive and/or unjustified lethal force by cops toward young black men but that gets very little press.

Second, what did the "Black Lives Matter" activist, Jerry Ford Jr. (no relation to former President Gerald Ford), do when he was robbed? Well is seems he contacted....the police. Weird how that works, given the rhetoric out of the BLM movement you would think he would be more scared to call the cops than be robbed at gunpoint.

What really makes this article so insane is this comment from Mr. Ford:

"It's becoming a pattern. I hope they would take a bigger stance and put more security over here because you have a lot of people walking back and forth to class," Ford said. 

As scary as this was, Ford actually feels bad for the guy. 

"I would've gave him money," he said. "I would've talked to him because the real crime is why is he in that position that he feels the need to come and hang out at a college campus and rob people of stuff they worked for."

A couple of thoughts. First Mr. Ford is calling for more security or a "bigger stance", not sure what that means because I am not a graduate student, (and this is off-campus) which presumably means....more cops. I thought cops were scary and all a bunch of trigger-happy racists? Wouldn't having more cops around make things worse?

Second, setting aside the statement "I would've gave him money" coming from a grad student, Mr. Ford immediately assumes that this gunman is actually the victim, forced into a life of crime because of white privilege or latent racism or whatever excuse he could come up with. This guy didn't really want to chat. He wanted Mr. Ford's money and was quite willing to threaten Mr. Ford's life with a gun pointed at him to get Mr. Ford's money. We call those sorts of people "criminals", regardless of their skin color or circumstances. Lots and lots of people grow up poor and with various barriers that make success more difficult. Very few of them point guns at people and steal their money. Poverty doesn't automatically make you a criminal and it never, ever, ever excuses stealing from someone and threatening their life.

Third, I like the last part decrying the act of: "rob people of stuff they worked for". That is precisely what the government does every day. A person works for a paycheck and the government takes part of it away from them and the threat accompanying that act is every bit as real as a gun pointed at you outside your apartment. Weird because a lot of BLM activists seem to think that they are right to demand what others have worked for but not when it is "stuff they worked for".

I wonder if they cover the idea of irony with grad students at the University of Houston?

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Right, That Must Be It

Last night Hillary Clinton, perhaps caught up in the fervor of speaking to America's new favorite protected class, homosexuals, in much the same way she gets caught up speaking at black churches by adopting a risible "black accent", made a keen observation about Trump voters backed up by mounds of facts. She stated that half of all Trump supporters were motivated by hate:

"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

She added, "And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric."

Clinton went on to say that some of these people were "irredeemable" and "not America."

As if Clinton has any idea of what is or is not "America".

So according to Hillary Clinton there are at a minimum some 5-6 million American citizens who are supporting Trump because they are racist, sexist, blah, blah, blah. Her evidence for this incredible observation is that she says it is so. Millions and millions of Americans are haters and that is why they support Trump and not her, because after all there can't be any other reason to not support Mrs. Clinton. Right? Well in the same CNN piece I linked above we see a graph of a recent poll that suggests that people are voting for Trump not so much because they are sexist/ homophobic /racist / whatever but because Mrs. Clinton is the one who should be seen as being in the "basket of deporables".

Oops. It looks like Hillary is just a lightning rod, someone who is virulently unlikable and has such a sordid past that millions of people rightly don't trust her as far as they could throw her. No doubt that all of those people who are against Clinton are sexist. There is no reason any rational person would not support Hillary apart from irredeemable sexism. Or maybe there is...

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye since her "husband" became President. She has consistently left a trail of corruption and the occasional "suicide" in her wake. She is an unpleasant person even in public unlike most politicians who can at least pretend to be a decent person in front of the camera and her statements above, far from being "startlingly blunt", are actually par for the course with her. Being vindictive and nasty is her main mode of operation. Recall the "vast right wing conspiracy"? Far from being "startling blunt", Clinton has always made sweeping, ad hominem accusations against anyone who dared to question her or her husband. Before she announced she was running again this campaign she already had incredibly bad polling numbers. As a people we have had a taste of Clinton in power and we don't want anymore, thank you very much.

Imagine the outrage from the Clinton campaign and her media lapdogs if Trump said that half of her supporters were unemployed, lazy, drug using, welfare recipients (for the record, he might very well have said exactly that at some point.). You would be hearing outrage about racism, dog whistles, etc. until the cows came home. You don't have to guess anyway, just recall the outrage over Mitt Romney's private comments about the 47%. It is a sign of how bad things are for her that she is starting to trail in some polls and even CNN is reporting her comments, even though they had on a professional Clinton defender who invoked the laughable "alt-right" conspiracy to explain Clinton's statements. As an aside, "alt-right" is just the modern iteration of "vast right wing conspiracy". It is essentially meaningless but it makes for a convenient way to discredit any opposing argument, as if anyone who marks a ballot for someone other than Hillary Clinton is a Grand Wizard of the KKK.

What I take from Clinton's comment is something that is pretty simple and that has been obvious for her entire campaign, and really her entire career, and that is a revulsion toward working people who are not on board with the social revolution. When I was younger the Democrats at least pretended to be on the side of the "working man", pursuing policies that they said would help blue collar workers. Now those workers, many of whom are unionized, have no place at the table for the new and improved Democrat party. The Obama/Clinton Democrat party is focused on the elites in coastal cities, including and especially Wall Street millionaires at banks and hedge funds (and if you think they have been paying her millions in speaking fees because they think she is going to "crack down" on banks, you have no idea how the world works), minorities, especially Hispanics, and above all else the sexual revolution. Promises of stuff like "free" college are just ways to get low information voters to show up and vote for that "free" stuff. The real target audience for Clinton are people who advance the cultural revolutionary movement to remake America into something very different from what it has been in the past. It is a movement that champions the self, self-expression and especially self-gratification, above any other issue and is run by the bureaucratic elites in Washington, the education establishment and cultural icons who help fund the movement and give it credibility. Anyone who works for a living doing regular stuff and is worried about the direction of this country, which any sane person should be, must be racist or homophobic just like anyone who wonders why black lives only seem to matter when a cop kills them is racist or someone who is concerned about "transgender" men showering with their daughters must be homophobic.

As much as they want to let this latest outrage slide, I am hoping the media will continue to call her out on it. You can't try to take the moral high ground by slandering millions of Americans. Of course the moral high ground in this campaign looks more like a cesspool but that is what he have to deal with.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Political Correctness Is Killing People

A brief note.

I check out the Chicago Tribune periodically to see what happened over the weekend in what is turning out to be an incredibly violent year that seems to mostly impact minorities. Not just gang members or drug dealers but little kids. According to a separate story, 27 children have been shot so far this year in Chicago. This number only includes those 13 and under so it doesn't include 17 year old minors involved in gun violence. So the latest from last weekend showed that the carnage is proceeding unchecked: 52 shot: Pace of gun violence in Chicago remains high over another weekend. The article points out that this is a trend:

Between Friday evening and early Monday morning, at least 52 were shot and nine of them were killed, according to police. The weekend before, 49 people were shot, nine of them fatally. And the weekend before that, 52 people were shot, seven of them fatally.

Three weekends. 153 people shot, 25 of them fatally. That is just the weekends. When I read a little further I saw this (emphasis mine):

As he has many times, (Chicago police superintendent) Johnson called for stricter prison sentences for repeat illegal gun offenders. Efforts over the years in Springfield to impose mandatory minimum sentences for people caught with an illegal gun have been stalled by lawmakers who felt such guidelines would disproportionately affect African-Americans and other minorities

Without revealing specifics, Johnson said a new bill in the works in Springfield would enable judges to impose more sentences on the higher end of the range for felons convicted more than once of carrying a gun illegally.

What?! Guess how else minorities are "disproportionately affected" guessed it, they are the majority of victims of violent crime carried out often by other minorities, most of whom I presume have illegal guns given the ridiculous gun laws in Chicago that yield us 153 people shot in three weekends.

Activists are more concerned about a minority getting caught with an illegal gun (which is against the law, hence the "illegal" part) than they are about other minorities, many of whom are not carrying an illegal gun and often seem to not be engaged in illegal activity, getting shot. In other words, these PC champions would rather a six year girl get shot, as happened last weekend, than an adult criminal who is actively breaking the law get arrested for...breaking the law. It is without question in my mind that some or many people who might not have been shot have ended up in the hospital or the morgue because of this political correctness run amok. People, again largely minority, riot and burn down their own neighborhoods when a black man pointing a gun at a black police officer gets himself shot but they have nothing to say to the Al Sharpton's/Jesse Jackson's/ Black Lives Matter people who have frightened law makers into this level of suicidal foolishness. I don't imagine many mothers stand over the graves of their slain son or daughter and think "Well at least minorities are not being disproportionately affected by stricter laws against possessing an illegal gun".

Wake up people. These clowns who are always yammering on TV and shaking people down for money don't care a whit about black kids getting killed. All they care about is fattening their own wallet and seeing their mug on TV.

Even in this day and age there aren't many news stories that are as infuriating as this one.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

A Tragic Irony

Today is day two of the Democratic National Convention and after a day of chaos the Dems are looking for a quieter day today. The news reported that the theme for the day at the DNC, besides "Please Look At Anything Else Other Than The DNC Colluding With Hillary To Deny The Nomination To Senator Sanders", is "A Lifetime Of Fighting For Children And Families". According to the blurb at NPR that means:

Tuesday will feature the roll call vote and how Hillary Clinton has spent her entire career working to make a difference for children, families and our country. The Mothers of the Movement participating include Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontré Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lezley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland.

Well I will agree that Mrs. Clinton has "made a difference" by generally making things worse for children, families and our country. Just like her old boss who promised "change", we got "change" all right, just all for the worse.

A couple of quick notes before my main point. It strikes me as fitting that the theme for the day separates "children" and "families" into two distinct topics since that has been the apparent goal of the Left for decades, getting children away from their families as early as possible and keep them away as late as possible via the "education" system. In a world that is functioning correctly, most children are part of families and most families are made up of a father, a mother and children. Of course even in the most idyllic settings that is not the case in every example but the closer a people come to that ideal, the healthier it is. That of course is not what people like Hillary Clinton want. For people like her it seems that the least qualified and trustworthy people to raise children are the parents of those children.

Also ironic is that the "Mothers of the Movement" includes the mother of Trayvon Martin, killed while viciously assaulting George Zimmerman, who is a jerk but that doesn't excuse banging his head on concrete, and the mother of "Gentle Giant" Michael Brown who was justifiably shot while attacking a police officer. Their inclusion should tip you off that this is nothing but convention window dressing, "Look, we care about black people", while they pursue destructive policies that have poisoned almost the entire black community and re-enslaved so many through dependence on government.

The real tragedy of the theme for today is that Hillary Clinton and her cronies can declare that she has spent "her entire career", a "lifetime" fighting for children while at the same time making a critical component of her career and her campaign the legalization and availability of abortion services which murder those children she has been "fighting for" her entire life. Only in America, in the Democratic Party, can someone be a strident advocate for infanticide while simultaneously claiming to be a champion fighting for children.

Don't talk to me about being a champion for children when you have the unwavering support of the butchers at Planned Parenthood. Don't act like you have a monopoly on caring for kids when picking a VP running mate with a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood but who timidly acknowledges that his religion opposes abortion gets people on the Left in a tizzy.

Also don't talk to me about children when you were the foreign policy lackey of an administration that has left a bloody wake behind it in the form of dead civilians, including children, who were victims of the drone strikes that Obama loves to order.

I know that most politicians and both political parties in America make a practice of lying and deceiving but in recent history none has done so with more audacity and arrogance than Hillary Clinton and her counterpart Donald Trump. A less likable, a less trustworthy pair of candidates to choose from has never existed in my lifetime. I do know this for a fact, a Clinton presidency seals the fate of millions of children and no amount of risible convention themes can cover that up.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Keep Your Eyes On The Clowns

In political terms this weekend is kind of like the All-Star weekend in baseball, sitting in the middle of the two major party conventions. Sadly there will not be a home run derby. Not much is happening, other than Mrs. Clinton picking Tim Kaine as her running mate, a guy about as vanilla and interesting as my now former governor Mike Pence. According to Politico Kaine is one of those "devout Catholics" who is "...personally opposed to the death penalty and abortion, but he has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood". Whatever that means. If you oppose abortion because it takes the life of an unborn child rather than because you are obligated to say so by your religion, it makes no sense to be "pro-life" for an hour on Sunday and pro-abortion the rest of the week. Anyway, a recap of the convention season at the mid-point.

Last week brought us a celebration of the cult of personality. Conventions are always about the nominee and spotlighting them but this week was like no other. The party seemed completely irrelevant, the governing principles that are supposed to unite conservatives into the GOP were set aside for a celebration of Donald Trump. We were treated to a minor uproar over a small section of Mrs. Trump's speech that was lifted from Mrs. Obama's prior convention speech. Other than that it was all Donald, all the time. I was very surprised that there was very little violence outside of the convention itself. I really expected some serious violence so either the lefties realized that mobs attacking people doesn't make people want to vote for Hillary or the fact that open carry of firearms is permitted in Ohio. Either way there was little to distract from Donald talking about Donald.

Next week will have the pleasure of listening to four days of speaker after speaker proposing untold new government programs and spending to fix our ills. There will be no topic which will not be accompanied by a speech telling us why we need more government involvement, that if we just add one more regulation or tax increase or additional spending we can end poverty/racism/sexism/climate change/insert liberal dogma here. If we were to add up all of the new spending that will be proposed next week we might conceivably double the Federal "budget". You can be sure there will be ample pandering to "Black Lives Matter", including the mothers of a number of black men killed in encounters with the cops, a group called "Mothers Against Police Violence", not to be confused with "Mothers For Police Violence". Included in this group is the mother of Michael Brown, a giant of a man who was killed by an officer in self-defense while attacking that police officer (and right after strong arming a shopkeeper and stealing from his store). Of course this is a political convention and facts don't matter, only the narrative. Too bad there won't be anyone speaking from "Mothers Against Black On Black Violence" or "Mothers Against Our Sons Breaking The Law". Ironically the convention will be protected from violence by police officers. I guess being surrounded by cops with guns is OK when they are protecting a political convention.

Meanwhile while the world is worrying about Melania Trump and Pokemon GO, the U.S. Treasury released the latest national debt number. It is a big number: Federal Debt Hits $19,400,000,000,000. If you peruse the campaign pages of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump you will see nothing about dealing with the debt, they are too concerned with spending more money "Free college!", "Build a border wall!", etc. Only Gary Johnson recognizes the debt as a threat to the national security of America:

By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable — and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.

Even Johnson is concerned mostly with balancing the budget rather than paying down the existing debt but that is a lot better than the other two who promise to increase the debt. His webpage even claims that"Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. ".

It is a national crisis and humiliation that only one candidate for President even mentions balancing the budge and addressing the debt and most people think voting for him is a "wasted vote".